concealed weapons
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Actually, I do, so long as that "support" doesn't violate any laws.
It does violate laws, you are aiding and abiding high treasonous criminals.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It does violate laws, you are aiding and abiding high treasonous criminals
Only if you can prove that the government is treasonous (Impossible by definition) and criminal. Anyway... I don't support the government... I tolerate it for now. Despite how you keep trying to identify me as a brainwashed servant of Uncle Sam, I do think for myself, and right now I consider our government to be "good enough." It's not even close to perfect, but it's tolerable for the moment.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Really the real cause of the suicides is antidepressants and the like that explicitly state that a major side-effect is suicide. Give me a fucking break. People are so miserable because of the chemicalized foods, destructive drugs pushed by doctors and governments, and rampant tyranny causing great misery to the people.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Really the real cause of the suicides is antidepressants and the like that explicitly state that a major side-effect is suicide.
The biochemical explanation for why antidepressants increase suicide risk is well known. Can you tell me what it is and marginally increase your credibility?
- F
-
RichardM1 wrote:
It does not happen "all the time". It almost never happens
Never happens. Surely having guns floating around when someone goes postal[^] is not a good thing. Only in action movies you you reckon? I find myself wondering what movies you watch.
Steve
Nice. Surely just spouting off with no facts is not a good thing. Count how many people have died from legally concealed carry permitted persons' weapons. in the last 2 years, 161 from this "obviously" pro gun site[^] This includes cases where the permit had no effect on the case, such as a stored gun used by someone else, obviously unconcealable weapons, and self defense cases. It isn't good, but you might want to do something about the death rate of cyclists or snuff users, too.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Look up statistics on the use of legally concealed weapons for crimes
But if you flood society with 'legal' guns, you make it easier for criminals to get them.
RichardM1 wrote:
The wrong hands already have them. It's getting them into the right hands that counts.
Do you have any statistics on the mythically common occurence of US gun owners shooting to defend their life or property ? If it does keep your crime rates lower, why are they so high still ? 'The wrong hands have them' is a furphy, as if flooding society makes no difference, because criminals can just pray to the gun fairy and get guns that way.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
But if you flood society with 'legal' guns, you make it easier for criminals to get them.
I know, self evident, right? Common sense? You want to take something from me, the onus is on you to prove it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you have any statistics on the mythically common occurence of US gun owners shooting to defend their life or property ?
Christian Graus wrote:
If it does keep your crime rates lower, why are they so high still ?
Because we are pansies in dealing with criminals.
Christian Graus wrote:
'The wrong hands have them' is a furphy, as if flooding society makes no difference, because criminals can just pray to the gun fairy and get guns that way.
Nice. NZ is a furphy. :rolleyes: Have you done any research, are is this all just 'common sense'? How well has the gun ban done for Oz? Made a really big difference, hasn't it?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
According to the CDC, the number of accidental shooting deaths in 2006, the last year they have numbers, was 642. They do not seem to keep track of how many of those were the result of a registered firearm being used. You're making a different distinction, 'killed by someone with a permit'. This would exclude, for example, if a man has a permit and his son plays with the gun. However, if that happens, it's a death caused by the policy of letting people own firearms, so I think it's still meaningful. Please explain how you can only find one death in the space of years, when the CDC can find 5,150 from 2000 to 2006 ( I'm making some assumptions on your use of the word 'years', their data goes before 2000 ), and doesn't seem to track which guns were registered. What's your source of data ? Knock yourself out[^]
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Please explain how you can only find one death in the space of years, when the CDC can find 5,150 from 2000 to 2006 ( I'm making some assumptions on your use of the word 'years', their data goes before 2000 ), and doesn't seem to track which guns were registered.
The thread is about concealed weapons and their danger, not guns and their danger. The data I saw was older and covered 2 years, and was accidental death caused
Christian Graus wrote:
Knock yourself out[^]
But, since you asked... During the 1999-2006 period, there were < 6k unintentional firearm deaths. 6.5k Unintentional Pedal cyclist Deaths 13k Unintentional Natural/environmental Deaths 27k unintentional di-hydrogen mon-oxide inhalation death 45k unintentional suffocation deaths 134k unintentional falling death 148k unintentional poisoning deaths 375k unintentional transportation deaths Why are you focusing on unintentional gun deaths when there are more unintentional pedal cyclist deaths? It looks like the US needs more bike control, or better controls on that damned environment (are those all global warming related?). Look at what DHMO is doing, it should be outlawed, damn it! If you were to focus on the actual statistics, you would be bitching and whining about poisons around the house and car safety. Why do you pick on guns, in particular?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are a hater of humans
Haters of humans and human nature are more likely to be pro-gun. You seem to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Instead of getting all excited:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are a hater of humans
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
not permitted to defend themselves
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
they are to be subjects
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
serve their masters
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
humans are stupid and pathetic,
why not argue the point, which is this. The guns are causing more problems than they're solving! You just need to look at the deaths by firearms statistics in your country to see that. It would be nice to live in fairy land where guns never fall into the wrong hands, but we live in the real world. Compare how many foreign invasions have been fought off to the numerous less desirable consequences of the right to bear arms.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
The guns are causing more problems than they're solving! You just need to look at the deaths by firearms statistics in your country to see that. It would be nice to live in fairy land where guns never fall into the wrong hands, but we live in the real world. Compare how many foreign invasions have been fought off to the numerous less desirable consequences of the right to bear arms.
It really sucks that guns have fallen into the wrong hands. But those hands are not mine. I own my weapons legally. I have committed no crimes with them. Nobody has been accidentally shot with them. Why do I want to give them up? There are bad people out there with guns. They are not going to give them up because you want them to. I chose to remain armed, just in case, and because I enjoy shooting.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Actually, I grew up in the suburbs, with a car, a yard... Hell, even a swingset, when I was little... I moved to the city by choice, because this is where the best jobs are. You keep talking about freedom, but anyone someone exercises that freedom by choosing something you disagree with, you insult them. But hey... That's freedom, right? You're entirely free to be a complete bigot. You and Gordon Brown should have a little chat. But MEANWHILE...
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are trying to redefine words. A law is a law, a regulation is a regulation. There is a difference between the two.
Regulation[^]: 1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct. (Dictionary.com) Law[^]: 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. (Dictionary.com) (Emphasis added) Man, I knew this would make my point, but I didn't expect them to actually use them to define each other... In the first definition of each, no less... Care to rethink your argument?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)In the US, laws are passed by the legislative branch. Regulation are made by agencies that are part of the executive branch. For instance, a lot of the things the IRS does is enforce regulations they have made that they believe support the tax laws made by congress.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You are a gun controller who is willing to make a big deal about concealed gun carry safety issues, and to dismiss crime prevention statistics without much reason.
Your making an assumption here. Several actually. I'm trying to look at this in a pro vs con on both sides as well. Both sides bring up some good points, but I've never heard of either side conceding anything to the other. Is it reasonable for society to accept some people dieing because of accidents caused by legal firearms? What should be done, if anything, to those who bought those guns when things like that occur. Why is it reasonable to not be able to own a howitzer or some other large ordinance weapon but okay for rifles, shotguns, etc? Why aren't all guns registered and treated equally before the law? I don't like to use statistics because people on both sides just use them to justify their own personal beliefs and not to logically or ethically discuss the issue. Statistics are generally used for pointless debate and can be fudged or made up on the spot or subjectively gathered. They also don't help answer the merit of gun manufacturing in general or nature of it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
I'm trying to look at this in a pro vs con on both sides as well.
I can tell, since the first thing you do is show gun owners lie.
wolfbinary wrote:
Is it reasonable for society to accept some people dieing because of accidents caused by legal firearms?
Is it reasonable for society to accept a whole ship load more people dieing because of accidents caused by legal cars?
wolfbinary wrote:
What should be done, if anything, to those who bought those guns when things like that occur.
The same thing as happens to people who own cars that have accidents. But it does not. If you steal my car and hurt yourself, you get in trouble. If you sneak in my house and find my guns and hurt yourself, I can get it trouble. How is that fair to me?
wolfbinary wrote:
Why is it reasonable to not be able to own a howitzer or some other large ordinance weapon but okay for rifles, shotguns, etc?
Good point. I mean, 18 wheelers require the same licensing and registration as a motorcycle, right? But since tanks and fighter aircraft are in fact arms, why should my right to keep and bear them be infringed? Yours, too. Stupid, isn't it? I am in the US militia, by law, for another 14 years. You are in it, as well, if you are younger than 45. As a militia member, you need to get off your ass and arm yourself, and get out of my way while I exercise my rights.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Clean up your own country, then come back.
As they say in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran?, Venezuela?, ... :)
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
thrakazog wrote:
The data for that probably just doesn't exist. Most states do not require firearms to be registered.
OK, then I await advice on how Richard's comment makes any sense, I guess....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It was a 'interesting' week, I just put in a bunch of 12+ hour days in and only just got back Saturday morning. Some things I had started answering earlier, and finished (I think) in a hurry, so if there is anything obviously missing or incomplete, please let me know, as I have a part of Sunday before I travel again. [whine bitch moan complain] I hate that I am training my kids that "Its OK for Dad to be gone all the frickin time." My daughter is going to think her husband 'should get out more often', and my son will think its OK to be an absent father. [/whine bitch moan complain] But, in the end, I think my job selling guns, cigarettes, drugs and liquor to illegal aliens undocumented migrant workers as part of a US government plot to get them all killed and set CSS off is really paying of in terms of both national pride and humor in this forum.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
The guns are causing more problems than they're solving! You just need to look at the deaths by firearms statistics in your country to see that. It would be nice to live in fairy land where guns never fall into the wrong hands, but we live in the real world. Compare how many foreign invasions have been fought off to the numerous less desirable consequences of the right to bear arms.
It really sucks that guns have fallen into the wrong hands. But those hands are not mine. I own my weapons legally. I have committed no crimes with them. Nobody has been accidentally shot with them. Why do I want to give them up? There are bad people out there with guns. They are not going to give them up because you want them to. I chose to remain armed, just in case, and because I enjoy shooting.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I own my weapons legally. I have committed no crimes with them. Nobody has been accidentally shot with them. Why do I want to give them up?
In a perfect world you wouldn't have to - but then again in a perfect world you wouldn't need them, at least not for anything bar sport. But it's a cost benefit issue: some guns do fall into the wrong hands and cause considerable harm to society. That has to be weighed up, and I'd suggest that the U.S. has got the balance wrong.
Steve
-
Bob, I was speaking to Christian, not NZ or Oz. But what do you think the US is doing to Venezuela? Do you think Chavez is a US plant? :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
But what do you think the US is doing to Venezuela?
Iran?, Venezuela? The query was supposed to indicate a possible next phase of 'Operation Enduring the US Military'.
RichardM1 wrote:
But what do you think the US is doing to Venezuela?
Working to overthrow Chavez? But that's just a wild guess.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think Chavez is a US plant?
Given the convoluted machinations of the intelligence services ... who knows? Could be! :)
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
But what do you think the US is doing to Venezuela?
Iran?, Venezuela? The query was supposed to indicate a possible next phase of 'Operation Enduring the US Military'.
RichardM1 wrote:
But what do you think the US is doing to Venezuela?
Working to overthrow Chavez? But that's just a wild guess.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think Chavez is a US plant?
Given the convoluted machinations of the intelligence services ... who knows? Could be! :)
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Working to overthrow Chavez? But that's just a wild guess.
He is not much more than a noy. Admittedly, he is trying to set himself up as president for life, and bears watching, but until he actually tries to remain in power after his term ends, I don't think the US will do anything.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Given the convoluted machinations of the intelligence services ... who knows? Could be!
:sigh: I wish there was something to say against that, but it is right on the mark. :sigh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I own my weapons legally. I have committed no crimes with them. Nobody has been accidentally shot with them. Why do I want to give them up?
In a perfect world you wouldn't have to - but then again in a perfect world you wouldn't need them, at least not for anything bar sport. But it's a cost benefit issue: some guns do fall into the wrong hands and cause considerable harm to society. That has to be weighed up, and I'd suggest that the U.S. has got the balance wrong.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
in a perfect world you wouldn't need them
As you seem to be saying, it is not a perfect world.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
I'd suggest that the U.S. has got the balance wrong.
And I'd suggest it does not. Since you purpose to take away my right, the burden of proof is on you.
Opacity, the new Transparency.